BeleG wrote:Sierra games came dithered, so dithering is not the real ScummVM feature, there's nothing to "disable". I believe it would be more correct to express it like "Enable EGA undithering", as undithering is the authentic ScummVM feature, which you can enable or leave disabled (if it's going to be disabled by default).

From the UI design point of view, there is another reason why no setting should be called "Disable ..." - the setting is represented by a checkbox, which can either be checked (enabled) or unchecked (disabled) - the enabled state of the checkbox representing the disabled state of some functionality would simply be confusing and bad UI design.

I would suggest to simply call the setting "Undithering". I'd leave the word "EGA" out too because that is too focused on DOS games - who knows if there is going to be undithering for games from other systems (or even undithering for VGA games) in the future as well, and if there is, there should probably not be a second, independent setting for it.

shurlogg wrote:
From the UI design point of view, there is another reason why no setting should be called "Disable ..." - the setting is represented by a checkbox, which can either be checked (enabled) or unchecked (disabled) - the enabled state of the checkbox representing the disabled state of some functionality would simply be confusing and bad UI design.

There are more ways you can go with this.

You could claim that the default state should always be the disabled/unchecked one so that the user knows that everything that is enabled is done so by himself. If feature x is enabled by default then the option should be checked to disable it.

You could claim that options should be formulated such that the wording is the shortest and/or best comprehensible. Let's say you have a game where you can toggle sound from different sources on and off (music, effects, speech, etc..). A global sound toggle option should be called "Disable All Sound" or "Mute All" and not "Allow Sound".

It's the 'fuzzy' strings right? Should I edit it again? I'm seeing that some strings changed. Should I updated it?

Yes it's the fuzzy strings. Usually they are new strings for which there was already a similar string in the po file from which it borrowed the translation. You will want to check all of these (most of the time I found the proposed translation is wrong) and either fix the translation or remove the fuzzy flag.

saulob wrote:Btw, does the translations works on ports? Like the PSP port, DS port, iPhone Port.

Does the ScummvM ports have translations on it?

That depends on whether the port enables the feature or not. I guess the DS port won't do it, since it's always struggeling with memory usage anyway. With the other ones there might be a better chance.

saulob wrote:criezy, just saw the last update. Our translation (Brazilian) is in.

Thanks

But... there are some problems. Checking the final translation with the last svn version I downloaded (1.3.0svn54095 , Dec 14 2010 17:54:05), some texts are different...
[...]
criezy, do you know why that happened?

I probably forgot to merge some of your updates into the translation that went into version 1.2.1. This version was built using a different branch of our code (and a different set of strings to translate). The translation used there is probably some of your earlier submission to which I forgot to apply the following updates you made. Sorry about that.